means of production take 3
Locked
 
|
All,
Because I now have two computers that don't work, one newer than the other, I decided I didn't have bandwidth (or clockspeed) for a discussion of Marxism, when it broke out last week. So forgive me if I am tilling old ground. I have rethreaded to minimize harm to the ongoing conversation. My ears perked up at the discussion of "ownership". Dogs seem to have (or enact) a concept of ownership. What you have within a few inches of your mouth, you own. Ownership, like territory, seems to involve some sort of mutual acknowledgement and agreement not to challenge a status quo. It seems that of late, the conversation of ownership has morphed into a discussion of "control". What wealthier people seem to have is the ability, more than the rest of the world, to control their experience. ( You can hear the my Apollonian creeping in, here, again.) So, Dave might say, in rebuttal, notice how frequently people put their control of their circumstances at risk. Think about Epstein, Madoff, even Trump, etc., for instance. There seems to be yet another impulse to ==>demonstrate<== control by putting it at risk and then recapturing it --thrill seeking, I believe one of you called it. This seems to be very primitive: for instance, the idea of bonding introduced by John Bowlby back in the Dawn of Time, seems to have to do with control of access to Mom, which the toddler tests by going away and returning. Hence, peek-a-boo. This seems to ring in a third concept, Power. Power, let's say, is the potential to control. So, when Trump says he could murder somebody on fifth avenue in broad daylight and not suffer any consequences, he is asserting power. The people with the most power never have to exhibit it. Trump would just put down his smoking gun and walk away, perhaps to the cheers of the crowd. He wouldn't have to resist arrest. Nobody would ever think to arrest him. There's a guy who visits the institute who wrote a book called Democracy in the Forest. The basic idea is that an attractor in human affairs is for a single person have power over control a group of dominant individuals who in turn exert control over a much larger population. Think Mafia. This scheme is known as altruistic enforcement because from a Darwinian modeling point of view, it's hard to see why the dominant individuals -- the soldiers, if you will -- don't pool their resources and take down the Don. I haven't been into the literature for years, but you can see something like this form of organization in baboons and in chimpanzees, at least sometimes. All very interesting. Don't let me take you off your track Oh, and thanks for the vivid description of over-clocking. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen?C Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:08 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] means of production take 2 Excellent! Thanks for that summary. I don't want to disagree with much of what you said, because what I'm trying to do is work out why some people can use the phrase "ownership of the means of production" with a straight face. 8^) What you lay out below worked. I did *not* grok that the key difference you see is one of ingrained vs. contrived senses of ownership. I think we could have an interesting discussion down into that. But it's definitely not what I *thought* we were talking about. I'd like to tie the 2 topics together more explicitly than you do below. To be clear, the 2 topics are: 1) what do people (e.g. you) mean when they use the phrase "means of production" and 2) ingrained vs. contrived senses of ownership. It's tempting to dive down into the mechanisms of something being ingrained vs. contrived. But I don't think that dive pulls much weight in relation to question (1). Whatever lurks at the depth of the distinction, maybe we can just allow that there is a distinction and stay "up here" for a minute? Perhaps you're suggesting that people who use the phrase "ownership of the means of production" are trying to make that distinction between an ingrained vs. a contrived ownership claim. It would make sense to me to identify people who use that phrase as accusing others of conflating ingrained "rights" vs contrived "rights". E.g. if only socialists used the phrase as accusations that the "ownership of the means of production" is contrived and not ingrained (or "natural"). I.e. the "means of production" should be collectively shared, not privately owned. Whereas a capitalist might counter-claim that allowing for a more ingrained (or "intuitive"), expansive extent of ownership fosters things like innovation, and accuses socialists of defusing one's motivations (ingrained sense of ownership) into the collective. So each side is arguing about where to draw the line between ingrained vs. contrived. Is *that* your sense of how people use the phrase(s)? On 11/20/19 12:55 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > My temptation is always to respond point-by-point (with larding) but > since I think we have been "all over the place" on this thread I will > try to focus on what I think you have focused on here. > > 1) I think of the most expansive model of "ownership" to be about the > "exclusive right/ability to use something". > > 2) I have focused somewhat on the intrinsic (or not) nature of that > exclusivity. > > 3) I have focused on the impact on others of that exclusivity. > > 4) I agree with the general arc you suggest about process vs object, > in particular that an object's affordances are what define it in this case. > > 5) i agree that softness/fuzziness vs hardness of object boundaries > make them harder/easier to "own". > > 6) I think we agree that _ownership_ in some way is based on a (semi) > consensual agreement... or "rights" as I think you describe it. > > 7) I agree that the "right to destroy" is some kind of *test* or *edge > case* of ownership... it may even be some kind of dual, but I am > unwilling to agree to using "the right to destroy" as the most useful > working definition of ownership. > > 8) I *don't* agree that the key difference between a hammer (tool) and > a human (labor) is their dynamic process or soft boundaries. I DO > believe that strong Capitalism does not consider there to be any > difference. Extreme forms of Communism seem to make the same > conflation, I believe that Socialism in all it's normal (not abberant) > forms begins with holding this difference paramount. > > What I have (mostly) been trying to delineate (3) is that the key > difference between a deeply ingrained sense of "ownership" and a > somewhat more contrived one built on top of elaborate human > institutions (all of the "archies" plus Capitalism) where it becomes > possible to claim ownership in a way that may otherwise be considered hoarding. > > A predator or scavenger may try to "own" the carcass of an animal too > large for it to consume on it's own, and in fact it may use it's > threatening ferocity to "own" that carcass up to a point. We > commonly see video footage of a mighty lion keeping a pack of jackals > or hyenas away from its recent kill, but it appears that *eventually* > the lion is sated (as are other members of it's pride if it shares) > and others move in to either try to assert their own ownership > (exclusivity) of the carcass or simply try to "own" parts of the > carcass by carrying it off or simply wolfing as much down as possible. > > Perhaps an arena where we can make productive progress is to discuss > where "the right to destroy" (or maintain exclusive use) comes from? > I think we agree it is in some way "by consent", though the "Might > makes right" camp might believe that consent through intimidation is > not an oxymoron. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: means of production take 3
|
|
Nick writes:
< Dogs seem to have (or enact) a concept of ownership. > Just have to bite on this one: My cattle dog seems to think of her collar as jewelry. If I take it off she chases after me and tries to get it back. < This scheme is known as altruistic enforcement because from a Darwinian modeling point of view, it's hard to see why the dominant individuals -- the soldiers, if you will -- don't pool their resources and take down the Don. > Each would have to believe the new boss would be better than the old boss, that it wouldn't be them, and that someone will be the boss. They've invested in an organization that has a pecking order, and so it would be dangerous to suddenly abandon it in favor of a looser cabal: Everyone beneath each of them might do the same. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: means of production take 3
|
|
Some comments that might be intrusive (in which case, I apologize and please ignore) or contributory as context to the "ownership" discussion.
Two-years ago I presented a paper, "Patterns of Humanity," at a social change conference. Part of the paper dealt with "economics," — in. quotation marks because not all of economics, but practical efforts to set up alternative mechanisms for economic exchange. All systems of exchange can be derived from three human/cultural patterns of reciprocity: general, balanced, and negative. Simplified: General is akin to parent-child, value is given with little regard for "repayment" except in very general and delayed terms (kids take care of their parents in old age); Balanced is implied by the name, exchange occurs but is balanced among all members of the group - with remarkably precise awareness of any imbalances, (we all know which of us missed their turn to buy a round of drinks when we are out partying); Negative is both sides trying to maximize benefit at the expense of the other party. The key factor in viability of each type is social distance; general within family, balanced among small groups, and negative the only one that scales and includes strangers. Markets can be based on balanced reciprocity, but only at relative small scale, e.g. the village or a community like the Amish. Almost all markets with which we are familiar and within which we participate are grounded in negative reciprocity. Because these are focused on asymmetric outcomes; they are enhanced by asymmetry with regard the factors of the mechanism of exchange. Two of the most common are asymmetry with regards information and asymmetry with regards power. A concept of "ownership" is but a tool for establishing or enhancing an asymmetry of power. Like Markets, a "Commons" can be grounded in balanced or negative reciprocity. The possibility of a "balanced" Commons is constrained, by social distance. The only way to ensure the minimal social distance necessary for a balanced Commons is some kind of overriding Culture. So it works just fine in groups with a strong defining culture like the Amish, Mennonites, and pre-statehood Mormon communities. Commons derived from negative reciprocity are doomed to "failure." davew On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Nick writes: > > < Dogs seem to have (or enact) a concept of ownership. > > > Just have to bite on this one: My cattle dog seems to think of her > collar as jewelry. If I take it off she chases after me and tries to > get it back. > > < This scheme is known as altruistic enforcement because from a > Darwinian modeling point of view, it's hard to see why the dominant > individuals -- the soldiers, if you will -- don't pool their resources > and take down the Don. > > > Each would have to believe the new boss would be better than the old > boss, that it wouldn't be them, and that someone will be the boss. > They've invested in an organization that has a pecking order, and so it > would be dangerous to suddenly abandon it in favor of a looser cabal: > Everyone beneath each of them might do the same. > > Marcus > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: means of production take 3
|
|
Is your paper available? On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:11 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: Some comments that might be intrusive (in which case, I apologize and please ignore) or contributory as context to the "ownership" discussion. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: means of production take 3
|
|
Gary, I sent it to your email. If anyone else wants it,I can do the same. davew On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Dave - I really appreciate this offering. Your simplified model of
exchange here fits my own anecdotal experience well enough and
might provide a good armature for a expanded notional model of
exchange:commons:symbiosis that I've been thinking/working
around. Please do send your full paper. Until I can read/assimilate the larger work, I'd like to offer to this audience another layer. Adding the spectrum of mutualistic to parasitic symbiosis in exchanges, and a measure of the *health* of a culture/community and its commons. I believe that mutualistic symbiosis is key to all 3 of your
types of exchange. What you call general is more than altruism or
deferred repayment in-kind. It involves a positive sum exchange
both ways, where what is taken by each side has more value to the
receiver than to the giver, and vice-versa. What you call
balanced may well include an uncanny ability for each member of a
group to keep the same ledger (e.g. who is always "light" when it
comes time to pay) but I believe works best when the exchange
includes asymmetric value received. I have friendship relations with people whose ability to pay is unbalanced, in some of those I carry the heavy end, in others I take the light end. This is usually done in qualitative ways... when we eat/drink at an expensive restaurant, my well-heeled friends (who might choose that class of place) offer to pay and when I make the overture, we go to a place that more evenly matches my means. Some of my friends truly can't afford to eat/drink out, so they reciprocate by providing a more humble or homemade meal at home and I might contribute an expensive (to them) libation. If we were keeping track of $$ in either case, there would be a lopsided asymmetry, but that is not the medium of exchange that is important. This is how idealized communism works "from each/to each". The flywheel effect of the commons has two main effects, one is
that it allows excess resources to be "stored" somehow... whether
literally as a communal granary or by enhancing the quality of a
pasture, woodlot, or water source, to be retrieved later. This
also allows for smoothing over time and circumstance. In a
drought year, the community may draw more water from a reservoir
than the runoff replaces, and one individual or family may not be
able to do their full share of Acequia maintenance one year, but
still take their full share of water. In both cases, the implicit
ledger is there, maintaining a balance, but not the exchange is
not directly between individuals but between an individual and the
collective *through* a commons. To the extent that the "commons" in question is a healthy ecosystem, then it is incumbent on the group to seek a general or balanced exchange with the ecosystem in many ways as if IT were another member of the community, to maintain it's health. In fact, more to the point, to join that ecosystem taking a mutually symbiotic role. You speak of asymmetries in power and information. These are both culturally derived/relevant ideas. With enough abstraction, one might caste the exchanges in an ecosystem into those terms, but I think it is generally the wrong way to measure those relationships. Predator/prey models ala Lotka-Volterra may fit this well (the information and physical prowess/power asymmetries allowing the predators to effectively hunt/kill/digest the prey ant the prey being able to evade/defend/be-unsavory enough to survive. But amidst this simplified free market economy "red of tooth and claw" there is something yet more constructive afoot. I wonder, using your terms of power and information, if the key to this symbiosis and the apparent creative emergence of an ecosystem, isn't the tension between these two abstractions (power and information)? To the extent that information can be copied with no degradation to the original and power is generally a conserved quantity, there would be an interesting interplay. The oxbird on the Rhino's back exchanges nourishment (eating parasites like ticks, but also sucking blood from the wounds) for freedom from those parasites (and possibly some healing through removing contaminated blood?) but also provides an early warning system through it's keener hearing and sound, alerting at early signs of danger. I think I owe Glen a response on the #2 branch of this thread, but perhaps this branch provides more background to thread #2 which is less about exchange than about control of exchange (ownership). - Steve On 11/25/19 7:48 AM, Prof David West
wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
To make that easier, all I really need are 3 examples of things you think can be privately owned that are also NOT "means of production".
On 11/25/19 10:54 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I think I owe Glen a response on the #2 branch of this thread, but perhaps this branch provides more background to thread #2 which is less about exchange than about control of exchange (ownership). -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |